Promulgation of Ordinance
Promulgation of Ordinance legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Ordinance promulgated by President of Pakistan in exercise of his power under Art.89 of the Constitution of Pakistan, if was not placed before the Parliament within the prescribed period of four months for approval, same would stand expired; and if no further Ordinance in continuation of the repealed Ordinance was promulgated or enforced by the President, the repealed Ordinance would no more be a law of the land.
"Promulgation of Ordinance", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939154
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Promulgation of Ordinance"
1984 M L D 162
GULLAN — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another — Respondents
Court: Karachi2005 P L C 76
ALI ASGHAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Through CHIEF EXECUTIVE and others Versus DIRECTOR' SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI and others
Court: Karachi High Court1987 S C M R 1482
KHAN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑S. 18 as amended by Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act (V of 1986)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction being beyond Rs. Fifty thousand, appeal was filed before High Court before promulgation of Ordinance V of 1986‑‑On promulgation of Ordinance VI of 1986 appeal was transferred by High Court to District Judge‑‑Application for re‑transfer of appeal to High Court dismissed‑‑Contention of petitioners that they had a vested right to have their appeal heard and decided by High Court and that amendment made by Act V of 1986 in West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance was not retrospective, repelled as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in 1987 S C M R 978‑‑Provisions of S . 24, C . P . C . , furthermore expressly empowered High Court of its own motion without notice to parties to transfer any appeal pending before it for disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to dispose of the same‑‑Petitioner could not claim vested right in derogation of statutory power of High Court under S.24, C.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.1996 P Cr
Rana MUBASHAR AHMED and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Peshawar2006 P L C 653
KESC LABOUR UNION Versus K.E.S.C.
Court: National Industrial Relations CommissionP L D 2004 Supreme Court 622
RAFI ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑S.10 as amended by Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962) with effect from 13‑1‑1962‑‑‑Chief Settlement Commissioner's Press Not dated 29‑9‑1962‑‑‑S.R.O. No.824‑K/6, dated 1‑9‑1961‑‑‑Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Validation of Transfers) Ordinance (III of 1963), S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.1 5(3)‑‑ Transfer of property to Mukhbar/informer‑‑‑Allottee was transferred property on 20‑3‑1960‑‑‑Settlement Commissioner cancelled such transfer on 18‑9‑1962 on Mnkhbari application filed on 30‑10‑1960 in pursuance of Press Note dated 29‑9‑1960, Chief Settlement Commissioner transferred same to informer on 13‑10‑1962‑‑‑High Court rejected claim of allottee, but treated property available for disposal‑‑ Contention of informer was that he had acquired right to retain property notwithstanding promulgation of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962; and that his case was protected under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Validation of Transfers) Ordinance, 1963‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such Press Note had been issued without legal sanction‑‑‑Proceedings initiated in favour of informer on Mukhbari application to transfer property in his name had no binding effect‑‑‑No right would accrue in favour of a person by, mere filing of Mukhbari application‑‑‑Proceedings initiated on Mukhbari application would not be considered alive after promulgation of Ordinance II of 1962‑‑‑S.R.O. No.824‑K/6, dated 1‑9‑1961 would not improve case of informer as same stood cancelled with effect from 13‑1‑1962 in view of promulgation of Ordinance 11, 1962 i.e. before passing of such orders by Settlement and Chief Settlement Commissioner in his favour‑‑‑Provisions of S.10 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 provided that Chief Settlement Commissioner had power to transfer property out of compensation pool either by means of auction or otherwise, as a result whereof, Mukhbar/informer had been kept out of picture‑‑‑Proceedings before authority on basis of Mukhbari application would, thus, stand abated without any further action‑‑‑Illegal order in favour of Mukhbar/informer had not been validated by Ordinance,1963‑‑ Existence of locus standi and right to claim relief were necessary elements for a claimant seeking survival of judicial proceedings, which were lacking in present case‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed appeal.1970 P L C 121
MUNAWAR KHAN Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSP0RT SERVICE, HYDERABAD AND OTHER
Court: Industrial Appellate Tribunal West PakistanP L D 1969 Lahore 545
FAJAR ALI AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus Mst. JAMILA AND OTHERS‑ — Respondents
Court: S. 21 (1) read with Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962) as amended by Ordinance (XIII of 1962), Ss. 6 & 7‑Words "pend ing immediately before commencement of this Ordinance" in S. 7 of Ordinance II of 1962‑Moment Deputy Settlement Commis sioner had moved Additional Settlement Commissioner for permis sion to review, review proceeding deemed to have commenced Deputy Settlement Commissioner moving Additional Settlement Commissioner for permission to review orders of his predecessor much before promulgation of Ordinance ‑H of 1962‑--"Pending" proceed ings not affected by provisions of Ss. 6 & 7 of amending Ordinance II of 1962‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in circumstances, held, competent to review case even though permission of Additional Settlement Commissioner accorded after promulgation of Ordinance 11 of 1962.1994 S C M R 1007
YUSUF ALI KHAN BARRISTER‑AT‑LAW, LAHORE‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs HONGKONK & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, KARACHI and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2023 C L C 355
GHULAM FARID and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)